Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Irshad Ali, J.
Ramkesh Verma S/O Jai Karan & Anr. - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secvy. Basic Education & Others - Respondent
SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1135 of 2009
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – U.P. Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 – Sections 7 to 10 – U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984 – Procedure prescribed for selection and appointment of the petitioners not followed – By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging an order whereby the claim for the payment of salary of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the procedure prescribed for selection and appointment of the petitioners has not been followed nor the Manager of the Institution has submitted papers for consideration of claim of the petitioners before Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad.
Finding of the court: On consideration of relevant provisions of 1978 Rules, came to the conclusion that there is no difference in order of approval or order of regularization. – It is the case of the petitioners that the District Basic Education Officer has passed the order of regularization after issuance of appointment letter and after joining on the post in the institution. – Under the Rules, there is no such provision for the grant of past approval. Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad had recorded categorical finding that the Committee of Management in spite of notice issued to produce the necessary documents of selection, could not produce the same before him as well as there is no material to establish that prior to issuance of appointment letter to the petitioners, papers were submitted before the District Basic Education Officer for the grant of approval. – Finding has been recorded by the Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad in the order that the Committee of Management has not submitted papers before the District Basic Education Officer of the selection for the grant of approval. – It has further been recorded that in spite of notice issued to the petitioners, no papers were submitted during the course of hearing at the level of the Assistant Regional Director of Education. – The finding recorded in this regard has not been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding return is just and valid. – Court is of the view that the Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. – Impugned order records finding of fact which has not been challenged in the writ petition. – Therefore, this Court refuses to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jyotinjay Verma and Sri Neeraj Chaurasia, both representing respondent no.4.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging an order dated 18.11.2008 whereby the claim for the payment of salary of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the procedure prescribed for selection and appointment of the petitioners has not been followed nor the Manager of the Institution has submitted papers for consideration of claim of the petitioners before Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad.
3. The petitioners claim that petitioner no.1 was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on 25.6.1981 in the institution and in pursuance thereof, he joined on 1.7.1981. The petitioner no.2 was granted appointment on the post of Peon by the Committee of Management on 22.6.1986 and he joined in the institution on 1.7.1986. Appointment of the petitioners has been regularized vide orders dated 2.11.1988 and 14.9.1992 respectively. The institution was brought within the purview of Payment of Salary Act on 2.12.2006. The claim was set up by the petitioners for disbursement of salary from State Exchequer on the ground that they have been duly appointed teacher and Group-'D' employee of the institution and are entitled for the payment of salary from the State Exchequer. When no order was passed on the claim set up by them, Writ Petition No.5679 (SS) of 2008 was filed before this Court which was finally allowed with the direction to the Competent Authority to pass an appropriate order on 15.9.2008. After service of the copy of the order passed by this Court, direction was issued to the parties to file necessary documents to establish selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and Group-D post.
Respondent no.3, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed an order on 18.11.2008 by recording a finding that in spite of direction issued to the Management to submit relevant papers in regard to selection and appointment of the petitioners, the same were not made available. In conclusion part of the impugned order, it has been recorded that the society was registered on 17.8.1981 which was renewed on 17.8.2005 for the period of five years. The institution which was run and managed by the Society, was granted temporary recognition by the District Basic Education Officer on 30.6.1982 and permanent recognition to the institution was granted by the Assistant Regional Director of Education Officer, Faizabad Region, Faizabad on 25.7.1987.
In pursuance to the Government Order issued for taking the institution on the grand-in-aid list, applications were invited and in pursuance thereof, the institution in question applied for taking the institution in grant-in-aid list. The Manager of the Institution was directed to place necessary documents in regard to the selection and appointment of the petitioners vide letter dated 4.1.2007 along with copy of the approval but no documents in regard to the selection and appointment were produced by the Manager of the institution. The approval was also not in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 1978 Rules'). The appointment for the Group-D employee namely Sri Ram Prakash Vishwarama was also not found in accordance with U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 1984 Rules'), therefore no concurrence for payment of salary was accorded by the Competent Authority. At the time of hearing in the matter, the petitioners as well as Manager were granted time to place relevant documents to establish their selection a
Deemed approval for teacher appointments under Rule 10(5) of U.P. recruitment rules entitles the petitioner to salary from the date of its occurrence, especially after the institution is recognized u....
The receipt of salary under court orders does not invalidate the claim for regularization if the appointment is otherwise valid.
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The main legal point established is that the deeming clause for approval under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 does not apply when the competent authority has communicated a decision to withhol....
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
A court may exercise its power of review upon the discovery of new, material evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, if such evidence establishes that an appointment met constitutional s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
